MK 课程结构

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. '获取' implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully discloses that the response includes unit type, completion status, and publish status. It does not state authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the data is scoped to the current user, so meaningful gaps remain for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no waste: the hierarchy and included fields are stated immediately. Every element (chapters→lessons→units, type/completion/publish status) adds useful scope information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the shape of returned data and the hierarchy. It does not fully cover when to choose this over sibling listing tools, but the core behavior needed to invoke it correctly is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single required termId parameter is already documented in the schema as '学期 id(tid)'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 获取课程完整结构, and spells out the nested hierarchy chapters→lessons→units with included fields (类型/完成度/发布状态). It is clearly a structural fetch rather than a flat list, which distinguishes it from siblings like mk_list_courses and mk_list_units, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by '完整结构' as opposed to a flat listing, so an agent can infer this is for getting the full course tree. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over mk_list_courses, mk_list_units, or other course tools, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.